THE decision to extradite Julian Assange to the US is both a perversion of “justice” and a mockery of due process.

The gangsters in Washington looked as if they were planning to murder Assange in the streets of London. They also spent a decade spying on his conversations with his legal team in the Ecuador Embassy. The medical evidence indicates that if sent to the US Assange will kill himself. None of this was deemed relevant in this sick joke of a hearing. Now the High Court has decided that the “promises” of Washington that Assange will not be tortured should be believed. These Kafkaesque “assurances” are utterly worthless.

READ MORE: Julian Assange has stroke in prison due to ‘stress over future’, fiancee says

The US/UK governments were assisted in slandering Julian Assange by the so-called liberal media. The Guardian, The New York Times and the BBC and the rest of the press all threw Assange to the wolves. As did the proponents of identity politics. They repeated entirely bogus smears against Assange all invented by the CIA. For over 10 years Westminster and Washington have ruthlessly pursued, vilified and smeared Assange. They wanted revenge for his exposure of the crimes of empire in Iraq and Afghanistan.

One of the main “witnesses” against Assange is a convicted felon. Sigurdur Thordarson was found guilty in Iceland of sexual solicitation of minors and adults. None of the perpetrators of any of the crimes committed in any of those wars of conquest has ever faced justice. Many have had lucrative careers on the boards of the war profiteering corporations. Some are even “respectable” voices in the media schilling for war with China and Russia.

The decision to send Assange to Washington for doing the job of journalism has grave implications. It means the criminal regime in Washington can send to prison anyone who publishes information it finds embarrassing. This is a frame-up of the worst kind and should be actively resisted.
Alan Hinnrichs
Dundee

ON Saturday, Channel 4 showed a programme described as: “A Very Royal Christmas … Sandringham Secrets” – a “special” look at how the royal family enjoy the festive period in all its magical detail, from historical traditions to “garish” gifts and “classy” celebrations. As is usual with this type of programme about the royals, a nauseating line of sycophantic apologists adding their “I am not worthy” contributions.

These obsequious cup bearers sought to justify the royals showy Christmas display of wealth and luxury.

While watching A Very Royal Christmas, I was given pause for thought.

Did those who were responsible for making this programme ever consider how insensitive it is?

Are those who are struggling financially; those who have had their Universal Credit cut by £20; those who have to make the choice between heating and eating in this time of rising prices and energy costs supposed to enjoy this programme about the royals privileged life?

Quite frankly, I thought the programme was self regarding and vulgar and spared no thought for those who are feeling the pinch most keenly in these challenging times.
Sandy Gordon
Edinburgh

IN response to Billy Connolly wanting to return to Scotland, well he has been away 30 years. And has told stories of the life and times of Glasgow, the good times and struggles, some with great imagination around the world.

I was thinking of a statue at Balloch train station, where you get a fantastic view of Loch Lomond and Ben Lomond. Also it was from here he departed “on the last train to Glasgow Central”, and hid in the lavvy when the ticket man came, a practice that continues to this day.
Robert McCaw
Renfrew

I WANT to say a heartfelt thank you to Alan Hinnrichs for his quite brilliant letter (December 10). I loved it, a fantastic piece of writing entirely befitting your paper. Here’s to an independent Scotland in 2023. We can only hope the Tory clown’s demise is much sooner.
Jane Bullock
via email

DOMINIC Cummings was pretty much discredited by the Barnard Castle eye test incident that led to his enforced resignation. That he is not a credible witness to report intentions that our First Minister may have communicated to Whitehall is in no doubt.

His assertions were well deconstructed by the article on page nine of Saturday’s National. It was confusing then to see four pages earlier Cummings being cited as a witness in the 10 Downing Street party affair.

The National should present a consistent line as to whether or not Mr Cummings is a reliable witness.

I would rather see him left to wallow in the hole of disgrace that he dug for himself than lend him any shred of credibility that he may well use in future to worm his way back into sufficient public confidence to be reappointed to a government position by Mr Johnson’s successor.
Ni Holmes
St Andrews